California Citizens Coordinate Diebold Takedown

[GuvWurld]

Please support this thread and campaign

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2310273

[autorank]

1. This message is endorsed by autorank, I am that man!

Now, get on over;)

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Whee

Andy cheering you on up there somewhere
Kephra too hehe
:applause:

[autorank]

5. Thanks Oversea, GLAD YOUR here!

Lots to cheer for. CA is experiencing a seismic event, and it's not related to geology!

Take care of your self.

auto

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Here almost everyday

Just dont post much
Haha too much subjective issue
Just read
But put in a shout now and then when needed
Like this small victory
A small step taken
But hey every step important
Tough fight ahead

I WANT MY GENTLE GIANT BACK

This giant control by chimp very vicious
Not gentle at all.

[kster]

3. KICK..nt

[Amaryllis]

4. Kick

[pauldp]

7. I've got my local group working on it.

investigate the vote.org in San Luis Obispo.
We are starting a letter writing campaign.

[emlev]

8. Good for you! Thanks for stepping up to the plate! n/t

[GuvWurld]

9. Right on! Can you post updates to the main thread?

To update a memorable Viet Nam era quote that perhaps DU will embrace:

"We have to bring down the government to save the government."

[pauldp]

10. I will.

I just contacted everyone last night. So far we have written to Judy Rodwald our county Clerk Recorder.
more to come.

[GuvWurld]

11. You Rock!

:yourock:

[pauldp]

12. Response from my Clerk Recorder

Several of us in our local election reform group in San Luis Obispo County have written to our county clerk recorder
inquiring whether or not they knew that uncertified Diebold software was used in the '04 election. Here is the response I
got:

(snip)
"Yes it was. The issue raised its head in the recall election and
uncertified software was used for that election. I know for those
that are Diebold detractors there is no excuse, but there were many changes
going on at the State level at that time about what needed to be certified
and what did not. Counties and the state were also to blame in part
as the Secretary of State was not communicating with counties about the
certification needs and counties were all so embroiled in trying to conduct
an election with very little notice that we were not asking the right
questions. Now in order to install new software (which is often
needed for changes in the laws or to fix bugs) we must receive
authorization from the Secretary of State."
(snip)

This CCR has also repeatedly made the point that we use optiscan ballots and we conduct
mandatory 1% recounts. She has been very accommodating to us local election reformers
in terms of meeting with us but she seems to think the suspicions surrounding Diebold are overblown.
She seems nice and hard working - possibly overworked, but all of that aside, if votes are being counted
with secret source code it doesn't matter, we need to fix it. The issue in SLO county is the GEMS software for the central tabulators.
So we are debating what steps to take next.

Note: I will post this to the main thread as well.

[GuvWurld]

13. Thanks for the update.

And thanks for your good work. I hope those debating in your group are seeing the Humboldt press clippings for inspiration. You don't necessarily have to go public calling for resignation right away but you could conceivably show her how quickly this debate changes and that she has to give credence to the GAO report and the hack tests and the bottom line proprietary issue just on its face. Election conditions guarantee uncertain outcomes. This is not defensible. Give her a choice so that no longer defending it means being on your side.

[pauldp]

14. Thanks for the advice GuvWurld.

I'll pass this on to everyone. I think if we met with her and presented some of the new
evidence - The GAO report and the hack tests - in person we may be able to win her over.
Although I think the '04 Presidential election was stolen, I think making that
the issue is not going to work with her. I agree we should give her a chance to make a change
in approach before we get tough. I think we will approach the County Board of Supervisors
and the local papers regardless however. I'll keep you posted.

[GuvWurld]

15. I agree it is smart not to revisit 2004

Historical facts have become so clouded as to create the same inherent uncertainty that unverifiable voting creates. That is, anything cited as fact from 2004 is likely to trigger a defensive refutation based on somebody else's "facts." It is better to create consensus agreement on what the actual conditions are for our elections. Then stating that these will be the conditions for the next election will enable the realization of the consequences necessarily associated with those conditions (i.e. paperless voting = unverifiable = inconclusive outcomes = no basis for confidence). If you can get her to recognize that the conditions are set up to guarantee inconclusive outcomes, you will put her where you want her. When she arrives at this spot you will either have won her over, or put her in the indefensible position that makes it OK to call for her resignation in the manner I've shown. She will face the choice of saying these conditions are no good and must be changed; or she will defend the indefensible and warrant being removed.